CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 01-26201.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 01-26201.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date6/18/2003
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Burt Smith
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found against the applicant on personal conduct allegations, specifically regarding dishonesty in reporting work hours on a time sheet. The applicant's actions raised significant concerns about trustworthiness and reliability, leading to the denial of the security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 01-26201.h1

deniedJun 18, 2003· Hon. Burt Smith· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old computer engineer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), stemming from a pattern of dishonesty and financial irresponsibility.

Specifically, the applicant was found to have intentionally deceived a lender regarding a car loan, believing he held no financial responsibility despite being the primary borrower. This resulted in a deficiency balance of approximately $7,098 after the vehicle was repossessed.

Additionally, the applicant falsified time sheets while employed by a technology company from July 1990 to April 1995. During the week of March 27-31, 1995, he claimed 40 hours of work on a program, but his supervisor's observations indicated he only worked 27 hours. This led to his termination for cause on April 4, 1995. The applicant's denial of misconduct was not supported by credible evidence. These issues collectively led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant engaged in intentional deception regarding a car loan, believing he had no financial responsibility despite being the primary borrower.
The applicant falsified his time sheets at work, leading to his termination for cause, which raised serious concerns about his trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.2raisedDeceptive or Illegal Financial Practices
F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E.1raisedReliable, Unfavorable Information Provided by Associates, Employers, Coworkers, Neighbors, and Other Acquaintances
E.4raisedPersonal Conduct or Concealment of Information That Increases an Individual's Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation or Duress
E.5raisedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
— Directive, Para. E2.2.2.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 8, 2002
Answer filedOct 28, 2002
Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
Decision dateJun 18, 2003

Cite For

Intentional Deception in Financial Matters Under Guideline F
Dishonesty in Employment Leading to Termination Under Guideline E
The Importance of Trustworthiness in Safeguarding Classified Information.

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on personal conduct allegations, specifically regarding dishonesty in reporting work hours on a time sheet. The applicant's actions raised significant concerns about trustworthiness and reliability, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	From July 1990 to April 1995, Applicant was employed by a technology company as an engineer. As part of his job, he was required to complete a time sheet to record the number of hours he worked on various projects. Applicant was supervised, but his time sheets were prepared by himself. During the work week of March 27, 1995, through March 31, 1995, Applicant was assigned to tasks related to one of the employer's technology programs. At the end of the work week Applicant submitted a time sheet indicating he worked eight hours per day on the program for a total of forty hours. Unknown to Applicant, his supervisor had been tracking his performance and the actual number of hours he worked. The supervisor forwarded to management a written memorandum that detailed Applicant's actual work hours during the week in question. The supervisor reported Applicant did not work 40 hours on the program, as he claimed on his time sheet. Instead the Applicant had worked only 27 hours, according to the supervisor's observations. Because of Applicant's time sheet falsification, his employer terminated him for cause on April 4, 1995. Applicant did not contest his removal. He now claims he did not falsify his time sheet, and he was the victim of his supervisor's personal animosity toward him. The record contains no evidence in support of Applicant's claims. I find Applicant was discharged from his employment in April 1995 due to a five-day pattern of time sheet falsifications. This dishonest misconduct, if revealed, might have had the effect of placing Applicant in a position to be exploited. Applicant's denial of any misconduct is not based upon credible evidence.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior (e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had a deficiency balance of approximately $7,098 from a car loan for which he was the primary borrower. The applicant's refusal to pay this debt, despite being financially capable, raised significant concerns regarding his financial responsibility and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a deficiency balance of approximately $7,098 from a car loan that was ultimately repossessed. $7,098	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Unknown	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.